ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�Correspondfax: +44141 33

E-mail add

John.C.Hall@s

Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1153–1164

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Pupil guidance: An integral part of teacher education anddevelopment in Scotland?

Valerie Wilson�, Stuart Hall, John Hall

SCRE Centre, University of Glasgow, 11 Eldon St, Glasgow, G3 6NH, UK

Received 7 June 2006; received in revised form 4 September 2006; accepted 13 October 2006

Abstract

Many schools throughout the UK are experiencing challenging behaviour from pupils and high levels of absence and

exclusion as they seek to implement initiatives aimed at raising pupil attainment [National Audit Office (2005). Improving

school attendance, London: The Stationery Office]. These initiatives often presuppose that pupils will receive adequate

levels of guidance and support to help them make curricular, personal, social, and health decisions. However, little is heard

from teachers and students undertaking initial teacher education courses on how they have been prepared for this extended

role of supporting increasing diverse student populations; nor do we know how they define guidance/pupil support and

integrate this with their concept of the professional role of a teacher. This article presents evidence from a one-year study of

pupil support in Scotland commissioned by the Scottish Executive Education Department. The study provided evidence

for The National Review of Guidance Provision in Scotland [Scottish Executive (2003). The national review of guidance.

Edinburgh: Scottish Executive; Scottish Executive (2005). Happy, safe and achieving their potential. Edinburgh: Scottish

Executive]. The study explored the views of all 32 local authorities in Scotland, a sample of students in training in two

universities and teachers, headteachers and pupils in eight case study schools, and also a sample of their parents. This

article focuses specifically on the findings relating to teachers and students in training. It identifies the ways in which they

support pupils and how well they think they have been prepared for that task. Two dominant models of pupil support

emerge from these data: an embedded and a specialist approach, and these vary according to school and education sector.

Primary school teachers were more likely to embed pupil support into their concept of being teachers, whereas secondary

teachers perceived it to be a separate, specialist function, which many were reluctant to undertake. Some implications for

teacher education are highlighted.

r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pupil guidance; Teacher education; Continuing professional development; Scotland

ee front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

te.2006.10.003

ing author. Tel.: +44141 330 3497;

0 3491.

resses: valerie.wilson@scre.ac.uk (V. Wilson),

cre.ac.uk (J. Hall).

1. Introduction

Pupil guidance in Scottish schools covers a widerange of activities. Although there is no unifiedsystem of guidance, traditionally it has been seen asconsisting of three main parts—curricular, voca-tional and personal guidance—and may involvereactive work with pupils’ problems, the proactive

.

ARTICLE IN PRESSV. Wilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1153–11641154

teaching of personal and social skills, and theorderly management of pupils’ progress througheducation and beyond (Scottish Education Depart-ment, 1968, 1971). It also involves working tomaintain school discipline and ethos, and goodcommunications between the school and the pupils’parents, and the school and relevant outsideagencies, from professional careers advisers to socialworkers, educational psychologists, the justice sys-tem, and others. A central message of earlierguidelines issued to help Scottish schools developpupil support was that guidance should be a wholeschool responsibility (Scottish Central Committeeon Guidance, 1986). More recently, it has beensuggested that the term ‘guidance’ no longer reflectsthe integrated pupil support provided by someschools. This article is based upon a study of‘guidance’ and pupil support in Scottish schoolscommissioned by the Scottish Executive EducationDepartment (SEED) in April 2003. The studyprovided evidence for The National Review ofGuidance (Scottish Executive, 2003) being under-taken by the Scottish Executive in response toconcerns that no mention of pupil guidanceappeared in the teachers’ agreement that determinedthe terms and conditions of teachers’ employmentfor the 21st century (Scottish Executive, 2001b). Thedata set to emerge from the study was extensive andthe finding are presented in full elsewhere (Wilson,Hall, Davidson, & Clancy, 2005). This article,focuses in particular on how students undertakinginitial teacher education (ITE) courses and alsoqualified teachers perceive pupil support and howthey are prepared so that they are better able tosupport pupils in Scottish primary and secondaryschools. By way of discussion, it considers whetherthe traditional concept of ‘guidance’ has beenreplaced by a system in which pupil support is nowconsidered to be an integral part of teaching, andthus a role, which all teachers must learn to perform.

2. Background

Three important elements form the backgroundto this study of pupil support in Scottish schools.First, school in Scotland as in the rest of the UK areexperiencing challenging behaviour and increasinglevels of pupil absence and exclusion from school.Increasingly schools in the UK are being asked tocater for a diverse student population, including themainstreaming of pupils with additional educationalneeds, while at the same time attempting to increase

social inclusion and raise pupil attainment (Depart-ment for Education & Employment, 1999; SocialExclusion Unit, 1998). There is also growingevidence of pupil disaffection: absence and exclusionrates are rising (National Audit Office, 2005), despitethe introduction of a plethora of measures to engagepupils and change the school curriculum. In Scotlandthis situation led to the formation of the DisciplineTask Group (Scottish Executive, 2001a) to addressconcerns about discipline and behaviour in schools.Amongst the groups recommendations was thatthere should be a comprehensive review of the natureand purpose of pupil guidance, both at primary andsecondary school levels, and of the training ofguidance staff. McLaren (1999) had already notedthat innovations, such as the introduction of Higher

Still, which reformed the upper secondary schoolcurriculum in Scotland, was having an impact on thebalance of work of guidance staff as they guidedpupils through an extended array of curricularoptions. In addition to the extra work created bysupporting pupils’ curricular choices, the DisciplineTask Group pointed out that guidance staff wereoften carrying a significant caseload of pupils whorequired intensive personal support.

Second, the nature of pupil support that should beprovided for all pupils, and in particular for those whoare disaffected from learning, is a contested area. Themost recent review of guidance in the UK, adopted amodel of five ‘pastoral’ tasks (Best, 2002). (Through-out this article we use the term ‘pastoral’ guidance torefer to support aimed at helping pupils deal withpersonal issues.) Best suggests that these are:

�

reactive pastoral casework, � proactive, preventive pastoral care, � developmental pastoral curricula, � the promotion and maintenance of an orderly

and supportive environment and

� the management and administration of pastoral

care.

In addition to this review of literature in the UK,there have also been several brief overviews of thehistory of guidance in Scotland (Ashton, 1986; GTC,1998; McLaren, 1999, 2003), one of which (Ashton,1986) noted that there were two ‘broad categories’ oforganisational structure for guidance systems:

�

vertical (‘house’) system in which guidance stafffollowed the same group of pupils as theyprogressed through the school and

ARTICLE IN PRESSV. Wilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1153–1164 1155

�

horizontal (‘year’) system in which guidance stafftook responsibility for individual year groups.

Table 1

Data collection methods by type of data provider

Data collection

methods

Informant type No achieved

Postal

questionnaire

Local authority

representative

26

Teachers/staff 158

Parents 100

One-to-one

interviews

Staff/teachers 36

Lecturers in HEIs 6

Members of other

professions

20

Focus groups Pupils 10 groups (84

pupils)

HEI students 4 groups (24

students)

Teachers 2 groups (12

teachers)

Short questionnaire

in class

Pupils 2413

Sometimes various combinations of these werefound (e.g. by using upper, middle, and lowerschool divisions). In addition, curricular adviceoffered in More Than Feelings of Concern (ScottishCentral Committee on Guidance, 1986) suggeststhat guidance should consider the pupil’s personal,social and intellectual development. It establishedtime allocations for guidance, which have tended tobe interpreted as the equivalent of 40min per weekfor every 15 pupils of caseload. It also referred toguidance as a whole school responsibility. Whetherthese guidelines were ever achieved in practice isdebatable; the evidence suggests not (Howieson &Semple, 1996a–d, 2000; Boyd & Lawson, 2003). HerMajesty’s Inspectors of Schools (HMIS, 1996) alsonote that the number of guidance posts in schoolsvaried across Scotland, as did expectations regard-ing the qualifications required by guidance staff,and the allocation of time for guidance duties. Theyreported on the existence of both ‘horizontal’ and‘vertical’ guidance structures and counselled that inthe light of recent and future developments inScottish education, the advantages of a verticalstructure have become more compelling (HMIS,1996).

Third, the immediate trigger for the research wasthe acceptance by the Scottish Executive, teachers’associations and teachers’ employers of the tea-chers’ agreement—A Teaching Profession for the

21st Century (Scottish Executive, 2001b), thatdetermined the terms and conditions of the teachingprofession in Scotland for the 21st century. Itproposed a restructuring of promoted posts withinschools that would involve the abolition of Assis-tant Principal Teacher (APT) posts, i.e. the lowestlevel of promoted posts in Scottish schools. Sincemany guidance staff were appointed as APTs thishad implications for the delivery of guidance andwould require good ‘first-level guidance’, i.e. pupilsupport, from all teachers, not only specialistguidance staff. These issues have raised concernsabout whether all teachers are able to perform aguidance role. For example, Cairney (2003) suggeststhat with the removal of APT posts, guidance willincreasingly be undertaken by staff untrained inguidance.

These issues form the background for theempirical research upon which this article draws.

3. Aims and methods

The overall purpose of the study was to provideevidence about the current state of pupil guidance inScottish schools in order to inform the work of theNational Guidance Review Group (Scottish Execu-tive, 2003, 2005). The study sought to identify theviews of teachers and students about currentguidance/pupil support provision in schools inScotland and also the views of pupils/young peopleand their parents/carers. Evidence from the lattertwo groups has been reported elsewhere (Wilson etal., 2005) and their views are considered to bebeyond the boundaries of this paper. The studyadopted a combination of quantitative and qualita-tive approaches. An overview of the sources isprovided in Table 1 below.

A named contact in each of Scotland’s 32 localauthorities was asked to complete a postal ques-tionnaire about the policies for and organisation ofguidance/pupil support within the authority: 26,81% responded. Eight schools and two HigherEducation Institutes (HEIs) also agreed to be casestudies. These were chosen purposefully from theinformation provided by local authorities as exam-ples of the different ways in which guidance/pupilsupport was currently being delivered in schoolsacross Scotland. Further details about the casestudy schools is presented in Table 2. (Only one,Case Study School A, was located in a rural area

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Some characteristics of the case study schools

School ID Authority ID School type Roll Location

A 4 Primary (non-denominational) 70 Rural

B 13 Primary (denominational) 200 Suburban, deprived area

C 22 Primary (non-denominational) 304 Urban, deprived area

D 1 Secondary (non-denominational) 508 Suburban/rural, mixed area

E 7 Secondary (non-denominational) 1045 Urban/rural

F 16 Secondary (non-denominational) 860 Urban, deprived area

G 30 Secondary (denominational) 850 Urban, mixed/deprived area

H 25 Special (non-denominational) 63 Urban, wide catchment area

V. Wilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1153–11641156

and there is insufficient evidence to comment on thepossible effects of rurality on pupil guidance.) Ineach case study school, the intention was to inter-view the person responsible for guidance/pupilsupport, two other teachers, another member ofstaff, and a number of pupils/young people. Theexact number varied in each case study according tostaff and pupil availability. In total, 48 staff and 84students were interviewed. In addition, staff, pupilsand a sample of their parents were asked tocomplete questionnaires and individual interviewswere conducted with members of other professions.A summary of case study evidence was returned toeach school for confirmation of accuracy andfairness and to rectify omissions.

Two HEIs, which play a significant role in teachereducation were also chosen as case studies. Both werelocated within the Scottish Central Belt and, there-fore, prepare students predominantly for employ-ment in urban schools. Six staff were interviewedindividually, and four focus groups (20 female and 4male students) were organised. Separate focus groupswere arranged for Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.)final year students and Postgraduate Certificate inEducation Secondary (PGCE) students. The result-ing large data set was analysed thematically usingtwo electronic packages: the Statistical Package forthe Social Sciences and FileMakerPro. In this article,we focus on the perceptions of teachers and studentsundertaking ITE courses by drawing on the quanti-tative evidence from the postal questionnaires andqualitative evidence from interviews with teachersand students in training.

4. Main finding

4.1. The concept of guidance/pupil support

It is clear from the evidence gathered during thisstudy that the words ‘guidance’ and ‘pupil support’

mean different things to different people. Theliterature search indicated that traditionally therehas been a tri-partite division of guidance intoeducational, vocational and personal guidance.Local authority respondents and case study infor-mants suggest that this traditional definition may nolonger adequately encompass the full range ofsupport, which schools now provide for pupils andyoung people. In general, two models of guidance/pupil support emerged from the evidence: oneassumed that pupil support was embedded in therole of all teachers; whereas the other presupposedthat specialist ‘guidance’ staff would support pupils.These models reflect the clear divide in the percep-tions of guidance expressed by primary andsecondary school teacher respondents. Forty-onestaff members from the case study primary schoolsreturned completed questionnaires (3 headteachers,22 teachers, and 16 other members of staff). Onlytwo stated that they had overall responsibility forguidance/pupil support. Thirty six (88%) reportedthat overall they had frequent involvement withpupil guidance and pupil support. None indicatedthat they were never involved with pupil welfare.Primary school respondents were unanimous intheir belief that ‘all teachers should have a duty ofcare’, and 90% thought that ‘all teachers shouldhave a guidance function’. Ninety-three per centassociated the key function of guidance withcounseling: 90%, with Personal and Social Educa-tion (PSE) and 90%, with discipline. All weresatisfied with the current pupil guidance/pastoralcare support available in their school (80%, verysatisfied; 20%, satisfied). A very strong sense thatguidance/pupil support is an integral part ofprimary school teachers’ professional role emergedfrom the open responses to the questionnaire andalso a resistance to allocating it to specialistguidance staff. (It was also the unanimous view ofstudents interviewed in focus groups in HEIs.) For

ARTICLE IN PRESSV. Wilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1153–1164 1157

example, the Headteacher in one school explained:my concern is that pastoral care is seen as separatefrom general pupil care and is, therefore, not seen asresponsibility of all teachers which it is in primaryschools (Headteacher 003, Case Study A).

The perceptions of primary school respondentsand informants stands in marked contrast to thoseexpressed by secondary school respondents. Eighty-eight secondary school teachers from the four casestudy secondary schools returned completed ques-tionnaires (4 headteachers/deputes, 81 teachers, 1other member of staff, and 2 unstated). Sixty-nineper cent of secondary teacher respondents reportedthat they were seldom (30%) or never (39%)involved with PSE: 96% believed PSE was a keyfunction of guidance staff. Ninety-six per cent wereeither very satisfied (46%) or satisfied (50%) withthe current pupil guidance/pastoral care available intheir school. Although, 96% believed that allteachers have a duty of care, only 44% thoughtthat all teachers should have a guidance function. Adepute headteacher explained that:

Guidance provision requires quality staff whohave (1) the necessary skills, qualities, knowledgeand training; and (2) the interest and desire to doguidance work well (DHT, Case Study F).

Numerous secondary teachers took the opportu-nity to elaborate their responses in open questions.Fifty-six expressed concerns about the future ofguidance in their school. Many focused on whatthey perceived to be the effects of the Teachers’agreement on staff morale and the organisation ofguidance. For example:

Post-McCrone, [Teachers’ Agreement] there arefears that Guidance is under threat. The job doneby guidance staff could not be done by other staffin addition to their normal teaching load. Theyare a vital part of an effective learning environ-ment (DHT 052, Case Study D).

Many felt that it was essential for pupils and therest of the staff that schools have specialist guidancestaff. For example:

Guidance is a very important job as pupils havevery diverse needs, especially with the movetowards inclusion. Knowledge of family history,etc. is very important. This job is far toospecialised to be devolved to already busy subjectteachers. However, support from school staff

generally, is vital to a whole school approach (PTSupport for learning teacher, Case Study D).

It is interesting to compare these views with thoseexpressed by students undergoing ITE. The overallview from student focus group participants was thatguidance is much wider than dealing exclusivelywith pupils with problems. This view was held byboth B.Ed. primary students and PGCE secondarystudents. One postgraduate student in HEI Xmaintained that guidance ‘is helping young people

in many ways—this includes help with personal

learning’. Another student in HEI Y thought thatguidance ‘is looking after the welfare of pupils’.Students also linked guidance to helping all pupilsin making choices and decisions. A B.Ed. student inHEI Y believed that guidance was about ‘helping

children to make their own decisions, and giving them

the resources to do it’.There was total agreement among all ITE

informants that all pupils were entitled to gui-dance/pupil support, and that it was an integral partof the role of every teacher. This stands in contrastto the views expressed by the majority of theteachers in the secondary school case studies, whothought that their main function was to be subjectspecialists, thus leaving pupils support and guidanceto those who held promoted posts in guidance.Teacher educators in HEIs operated with a conceptof ‘guidance/pupil support’ which both recognisedthe difficulties in defining it as well as the need toaccept its inclusive and integrated nature. Onelecturer in HEI Y thought that [guidance] ‘is a

difficult concept to encapsulatey’ Another in HEI Xindicated that it ‘is a problematic area. It is

predicated on the notion that the person offering

guidance is better than the person being guided’.Despite such challenges in defining the concept, allthe university staff interviewees recognised that‘guidance/pupil support’ was about helping andsupporting all pupils. In their responses, twolecturers used the term ‘pastoral care’. One lecturersaid that:

Guidance is pastoral care—it is being an advocate

for pupils, and to support pupils in difficulties they

have or perceive they have in relationship to any

environment (in and out of school). It also includes

pupil support in relation to the curriculum

(Lecturer HEI/X).

There were similarities in the views expressed byITE students and their lecturers; both groups

ARTICLE IN PRESSV. Wilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1153–11641158

thought that all pupils were entitled to ‘guidance/pupil support’. They also thought that guidance/pupil support was part of the role of all teachers,though one lecturer voiced concerns about thepracticalities of implementation in secondaryschools:

We live in a false world if we think all [secondaryschool] teachers want to take on guidance, or

inclusion etc. There exist quite entrenched attitu-

desy (Lecturer, HEI/Y).

4.2. Preparation for guidance/pupil support

Both students and lecturers described ways inwhich HEIs prepare students during their ITE for afuture role in guidance/pupil support. Studentsidentified formal inputs within their B.Ed. or PGCEsecondary courses, and also described the opportu-nities for learning from experience during periodsspent in schools. The length of each mode oftraining (i.e. 1-year PGCE or 4-year B.Ed.) imposedconstraints on what could be offered to students.While the PGCE secondary students emphasised thelimited number of lectures (we will have a lecture

next term (Focus Group, HEI/Y); there is an initial

lecture on child protection (Focus Group, HEI/X)),the B.Ed. students were aware of the permeatingnature of ‘guidance/pupil support’ in their course aswell as the fact that both universities also offeredelectives in pupil support. (This may very well be thegenesis of the two dominant models of pupilssupport, i.e. integrated into teaching or providedby specialist guidance staff, which are currentlyevidence in Scottish schools.) One such focus grouppointed out that they were conscious that ‘guidance/pupil support’ came up in other lectures, e.g. on

better behaviour/better learning; the UN Convention

on the Rights of the Child (B.Ed. Focus Group,HEI/X). Three of the four focus groups specificallymentioned the role of school placement in theirpreparation for a future role in ‘guidance/pupilsupport’.

HEI staff were able to provide a more detaileddescription of ways in which they introducedstudents to ‘guidance/pupil support’ within ITE.This included in the B.Ed. course a number ofaspects, for which one lecturer described the startingpoint as the number of guidance systems within the

University. A lecturer on the primary educationcourse mentioned that overall:

It [preparation for guidance] comes into the

preparation for teaching. Specifically, it comes

into the third year—Educational Studies. There is

an optional module (2 credits) in third and fourth

year—PSD [Personal and Social Development]and Health Education (Lecturer, HEI/Y).

The emphasis in the PGCE secondary course wason the strength of the electives, including guidance.One lecturer stated that students were also offered a

mosaic of different items covering different issues e.g.

rights of the child, which tried:

To combat the view of the teacher as simply a

teacher of technology for example. Such a ‘vision’

is included in lectures for example on profession-

alism, inclusion and achievement, adolescence

and personal and social development (Lecturer,HEI/Y).

A number of lecturers, as echoed earlier in thestudent comments, noted the importance of schoolplacement in the preparation of students for a rolein guidance/pupil support. However, two focusgroups, one primary and one secondary, called forcloser links between their placement experience andwhat they were taught on the course. Indeed onefocus group of B.Ed. students believed that thereshould be additional time given to school place-ments on their course, which would allow extra timefor training in areas such as ‘guidance/pupilsupport’ (HEI/X).

4.3. Opportunities for continuing professional

development

Given that HEI lecturers had highlighted ashortage of time in which to prepare students forguidance and pupil support in what they perceivedto be an already crowded ITE timetable, especiallyin the 1 year PGCE, we wondered whether localauthorities were filling the gap by offering newlyqualified and more experienced teachers furtheropportunities to develop their knowledge in thisarea. Twenty-three of the 26 local authorities thatresponded to our survey (88%) indicated that theyoffered some form of basic continuing professionaldevelopment (CPD), ‘in-service’ or ‘staff develop-ment’ in guidance/pupil support for employedteachers. These included both ‘introduction toguidance’ courses and courses for experiencedguidance staff. Six authorities specifically mentionedthat these opportunities would be advertised in ‘in-

ARTICLE IN PRESSV. Wilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1153–1164 1159

service catalogues’, and that needs would emergefrom staff development and review interviews with-in schools. Examples included:

Full in-service catalogue offered in pastoralcare—available as central twilight/twilightschool/school-based school (LA 16).

An 8 week course ‘An Introduction to Guidance’.This course is certificated by the authorityy Thiscourse is open to any member of staff who wishesto find out more (LA 13).

However, another authority (LA 23) admittedthat training for guidance was ‘sporadic’ and fullyfunded only when specific grants were available; andanother (LA 9) indicated that it had organisedtraining on careers guidance funded by a formerspecific grant. Thirteen local authorities (50%) alsomentioned that they supported staff who wished toqualify to Postgraduate Certificate (or Diploma)level in Guidance, but five (19%) specificallypointed out that responsibility for all staff develop-ment had been devolved to schools. As Authority 7explained:

Budgets have been devolved to support staffdevelopment activities. Teachers wishing topursue additional qualifications or training inGuidance usually apply via their headteacher(LA 7).

This contrasts with Authority 9, which providedsome overall direction in guidance through itsGuidance Curriculum Management Group, whichidentified training needs and training providers forschools. Authority 1 described how it encouragedteachers to undertake specialist training in guidanceand supported teachers who attended:

�

Basic Course in Guidance/pastoral care/PSE; � Certificate Course in Guidance; � Diploma Course in Guidance; � Numerous professional development courses and

opportunities within the authority programme.

Others, such as Authority 31, reported thatalmost all guidance staff have a recognised qualifi-cation. Authority 6 recommended that staff under-take the course leading to the Certificate inGuidance and Counselling in an HEI. Anotherexpected all Principal Teachers of Guidance to haveor to be completing the Diploma in Guidance, andAPTs to have or be completing the Certificate in

Guidance. Some authorities (e.g. LA 8) appeared tohave developed close links with particular HEIs anduse them exclusively for the provision of accreditedcourses in guidance. There was, however, someevidence to suggest that assumptions about traininghad already begun to change in some authorities.Authority 26 pointed out that in the past allguidance staff were trained to credit guidance level;while Authority 27 indicated that it had previously

financed staff to undertake the Postgraduate Certi-ficate in Guidance course within an HEI—theimplication being that neither did so now.

Teachers in our case study schools did notnecessarily perceive these opportunities to pursuefurther training described by local authority re-spondents, nor was there agreement about the staffwho should attend them. Almost all primary schoolrespondents thought that all new teachers should beintroduced to guidance/pupil support during theirinitial teacher-training course (98% of primary staffand 77% of secondary staff). The differencesbetween the sectors were smaller for the remainingtwo items shown in Fig. 1. Eighty-five per cent ofprimary and 81% of secondary respondents con-sidered that specialist training for guidance/pastoralcare should be compulsory; and 85% of primaryand 87% of secondary wanted serving teachers tohave CPD opportunities in pupil guidance/pastoralcare.

4.3.1. Primary school teachers

Thirty-two primary school teachers (78%), sug-gested CPD topics, which they considered to be apriority. These included:

�

On-going access to PSE training (Headteacher003, Case Study A); � Dealing with other agencies and meetings (Tea-

cher 004, Case Study A);

� To be kept informed of new initiatives, agencies,

groups as they are formed and their specific remit(Acting Headteacher 005, Case Study B);

� Ways to support parents or access support for

them in their role at home (Nursery Teacher 006,Case Study B);

� Listening skills (Learning Support Teacher 008,

Case Study B);

� Child protection issues (Senior Clerical Assistant

017, Case Study C);

� Training in sensitive issues (Teacher 024, Case

Study C);

� Pupil counselling (Teacher 025, Case Study C).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Specialist training for Guidance/Postoral care staffshould be compulsory

All new teachers should be introduced to pupilGuidance/Pastoral care in their intial teacher training

All serving teachers should have CPD opportunitiesprovided in pupil Guidance/Pastoral care

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentages

Prim. Staff

Sec. Staff

Spec. Sch. Staff

Fig. 1. Staff perceptions of who should receive training for guidance/pupil support NB. As only one special school was included in the

sample, the results have been excluded from the discussion in the main text, which concentrates on teachers in mainstream primary and

secondary schools.

V. Wilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1153–11641160

By far the largest number of respondents re-quested training in coping with behaviour/disrup-tive children in class, and how to deal with sensitiveissues such as child abuse. Dealing with disruptiveand violent behaviour was a continuous problemwhich teachers in the school faced. One headteacherargued that:

We need an in-service on restraining pupils. Weneed to see what to do when they are biting,kicking, punching us. I had a wee lad like that theother day. He head butted me... We have apastoral care responsibility, which falls on all staffbecause we have an inclusion policyyif they arephysically bigger than you it is difficult to knowwhat to do (Headteacher, Case Study B).

And, as another teacher concurred:

We have no training for dealing with kids with allkinds of problems that are coming in these days...We need a guide to the right thing for us to dolegally. We need to know what the boundariesare (Teacher, Case Study B).

4.3.2. Secondary school teachers

Eighty-four secondary school staff returnedcompleted questionnaires. Eighty-seven per cent ofthese thought that training for guidance staff shouldbe compulsory, and 81%, that CPD in guidanceshould be available for all serving teachers. Thirty-eight respondents (45%) identified training inguidance/pastoral care needs, which they considered

to be a priority for themselves. These included thetopics usually associated with guidance/pupil sup-port.

�

Principles of PSE (Teacher 043, Case Study D); � Child welfare/child protection and counselling

(Support for Learning Teacher 047, Case StudyD);

� Negotiating skills (Teacher 049, Case Study D); � Pastoral care training for class teachers (Principal

Teacher 051, Case Study D);

� Behavioural support and anger management

training (Principal Teacher Guidance 054, CaseStudy D);

� Careers advice (Principal Teacher 066, Case

Study D);

� Drug awareness (Principal Teacher 067, Case

Study D);

� Listening and counselling skills (Principal Tea-

cher 074, Case Study D);

� Awareness of availability of outside agency

interventions and what can be done (PrincipalTeacher 094, Case Study E; Teacher 110, CaseStudy F).

A few were less enthusiastic about training for arole, which included pupil support, and reportedthat:

�

As a subject teacher, this [training in pupilsupport] would not be my priority! (APT 086,Case Study E);

ARTICLE IN PRESSV. Wilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1153–1164 1161

�

How to avoid it [guidance] (Teacher 093, CaseStudy E); � While I believe every teacher has a pastoral role,

I believe it is better to train a few teachers tospecialise in this role (PT 080, Case Study E).

All our interviewees in Case Study D thought thatpersonality and motivation were the two necessaryrequirements for all guidance teachers. However,they also suggested that maturity and priorexperience of the subject curriculum helpedestablish the credibility of guidance staff. Staffwith these qualities and experience should besupported by relevant in-service training in childprotection issues, bereavement, self-harming, alco-hol and drugs, confidentiality, bullying, manage-ment issues associated with the guidance system,best practice in autism, and counselling. Theythought that these training events should be opento all teachers and not restricted to specialistguidance staff. One class teacher, who was under-taking a postgraduate course in guidance andtaught PSE even though her subject was music,explained how she had:

Learnt a lot [from the course]. Things I have nottaken an interest in up ‘till nowy as a newteacher there was too much to take in. I now findout I could be more interested and would like tomove into Guidancey (Teacher, Case Study D).

One teacher had found ‘acting up’ in a guidancepost prior to gaining a permanent post in guidancehad provided highly relevant on-the-job training.Another teacher confirmed that:

There is nothing like the experience of actuallyhaving to cope with tearful children (or parentsfor that matter). The best training is doing it!(Teacher, Case Study D).

5. Discussion

5.1. Different models have emerged

The main finding to emerge from the study is thatno one system of ‘guidance’/pupil support isoperating in Scottish schools: these structures variedaccording to local authority and school sector.Although no one system of providing pupil gui-dance emerged it is, however, possible to identifytwo dominant models: one is an ‘embedded’approach in which pupil support is perceived to be

integral to the teacher’s role; and the other relies onthe deployment of specialist guidance/pupil supportstaff. The primary school teachers and students intraining for primary school teaching all viewedpupil support as an integral part of their profes-sional role and central to learning and teaching inthe primary school. In contrast, guidance/pupilsupport in the secondary school case studiesrelied on different variations of a ‘specialist model’:Case Study E used a ‘traditional approach’ toguidance in which most Principal Teachers ofguidance provided pupil support and also taughtother subjects with a reduced teaching timetable.Case Studies D and F employed full-time guidancestaff who taught only PSE; and Case Study G hadintroduced a large team of 21 staff, which integratedpastoral care and learning support. Given thatguidance is under review in 25 local authorities, weanticipate that more schools will either be changingor contemplating changing their guidance provisionwhich will give rise to further variations acrossScotland.

Although most primary and secondary school-teacher respondents thought that all teachers have aduty of care for pupils, differences between thesectors emerged when teachers were asked whetherthey thought that all teachers should have aguidance function. This finding will not surprisemany practitioners and is consistent with viewsexpressed by students undertaking teacher trainingin our sample, the majority of whom experiencedtwo very different courses as preparation for theirentry to teaching in primary and secondary schools.Ninety per cent of primary teachers reported thatthey had a guidance role, but only 44% ofsecondary teacher respondents. Differences alsoemerged in the terminology used in each sector.Teachers in primary schools rarely used the term‘guidance’. Typically, they considered ‘pupil sup-port’ to be an integral part of the organisation of theschool and teachers’ professional role within it.Most primary school teachers (88%) reported thatthey were involved with pupil support. All weresatisfied with the current pupil support available intheir schools (80%, very satisfied; and 20%,satisfied). However, a number indicated that socialinclusion policies were increasing the pupil supportdemands being made of staff. Seventy-eight per centof secondary school staff respondents indicated thatthey were involved with guidance/pupil support(38%, frequently; and 41%, occasionally). Ninety-six per cent were satisfied (46%, very satisfied; 50%,

ARTICLE IN PRESSV. Wilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1153–11641162

satisfied) with the current pupil guidance/pastoralcare available in their school. One school (CaseStudy G) no longer used the term ‘guidance’ andreferred only to ‘pupil support’.

5.2. Training for guidance/pupil support

Significantly, whichever model informantsadopted, they identified opportunities for improvingtheir knowledge of guidance/pupil support duringITE and from CPD courses. Students undergoingITE thought that their introduction to ‘guidance/pupil support’ was strong in elective subjects, butneeded to be addressed in more detail in the coreprogramme for the benefit of all students. Theirlecturers in HEIs were aware of certain gaps inprovision and had either begun the process ofattempting to address these, or suggested specificways in which the provision could be enhanced inthe future. It is, however, difficult to see how thismight be achieved in the already crowded 1-yearPGCE course and deferring training until studentshave qualified might be equally unrealistic.Although most local authorities (88%) claim toprovide some form of CPD, in-service or staffdevelopment in guidance/pupil support for theteachers whom they employed, opportunities arenot open to all. Thirteen local authorities (50%)supported staff that wished to undertake Postgrad-uate Certificates or Diplomas in Guidance andCounselling. However, case study primary schoolteachers pointed to the paucity of opportunities forthem to develop their knowledge and skills in thisarea. This lack of training became particularly acutewhen teachers had to cope with violent or disruptivepupils in schools sited in areas of multiple depriva-tion. Case study secondary school teachers did notnecessarily believe that training per se was theanswer to the problem: they highlighted theimportance of personal qualities, motivation andexperience for guidance/pupil support staff whichappropriate training could only complement but notreplace.

5.3. Gaps in training/development provision

If as some respondents/informants argue pupilguidance is an integral part of the role of being ateacher, then training should be available for all.However, informants identified a number of gaps inexisting provision for developing teachers’ capabil-ities to support pupils effectively. The location of

the school could limit opportunities, as the localauthority representative in one predominantly ruralauthority pointed out:

A major factor affecting participation [in train-ing] is that until recently many of the pro-grammes and courses were only available withininstitutions located in the Central Belt of Scot-land... (LA 7).

Some teachers would like to see more provisionopen to all teachers and not restricted to specialistteachers of guidance. This is particularly true inschools in areas of multiple deprivations. Primaryschool informants pointed to the paucity of courses/development opportunities specifically targeting theneeds of class teachers in primary schools. Somesupport staff made a plea to be included in teachers’in-service activities. One in Case Study B believedthat support staff had been undervalued in the past,but that in her particular school they wereencouraged to know and understand about pastoral

care issues. Students and lecturers in HEIs thoughtthat more coverage of ‘guidance/pupil support’ forall students should be made available on courses ofITE.

6. Conclusion

This study confirms that guidance/pupil supportis a complex issue about which various stakeholdershave different perceptions and express strongopinions. It is also clear that the provision ofeffective school-based pupil support has implica-tions for a number of Government initiatives whichaim to raise attainment, reduce absence fromschool, improve social inclusion, mainstream pu-pils/young people with additional learning needs,provide individualised learning plans, ease thetransition from school to employment, reduce youthcrime, and improve the urban environment. Thereare also implications for other professions asschools develop increasing links with educationalpsychologists, social and community workers, theCareers Service, health workers, community police,and parents to help them support young people withcomplex needs. Our findings confirm that teacherand headteacher respondents were concerned aboutthe increasing pressure that pupil behaviour anddiscipline was placing on them, and in particular theneed to provide individual support for disaffectedpupils. However, disturbingly, no agreementemerged regarding how pupil support should be

ARTICLE IN PRESSV. Wilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1153–1164 1163

organised or how teachers should be prepared for arole, which may not have been included in their owninitial training. This has implications for practiceand further training.

In 2000, researchers traced the roots of guidancestructures in schools to the house system inindependent schools and identified a number of‘fault lines’ (Watts & Kidd, 2000). These include thetraditional three-part division of guidance intoeducational, vocational, and personal aspects. Wefound that these ‘fault lines’ persist and continue togenerate tensions, although they are much lessevident in our sample primary schools in whichteachers talked about meeting the needs of thewhole child.

HMIS (HMIS, 1996) had also pointed out thatthe delivery of guidance could vary. Our findingsconfirm that this is still the case. Guidance may beperceived to be a responsibility of all teachers,concentrated in the hands of a number of specialisedteachers who also retain a ‘normal’ teachingfunction; or be delegated to full-time specialists,who may be internal or external to the school. Itmay be reactive or proactive, remedial or preventa-tive. We found that no one system has beengenerally accepted.

Previous guidelines (Scottish Central Committeeon Guidance, 1986) suggested that guidanceshould be a whole school responsibility andnot delegated to a few teachers who hold additionalresponsibility posts. However, throughout ourresearch informants conceptualised ‘guidance/pupil support’ in different ways and we are notconvinced that all our case study schools havenecessarily accepted the principle that pupilsupport is a whole school responsibility. Teacherrespondents in different sectors expressed strongviews about the organisation of guidance/pupilsupport into ‘specialist’ versus ‘generalist’ provision.Many secondary teacher respondents still perceivethemselves to be teachers of a curriculumsubject and preferred to delegate pupil support tothose holding specialist posts. Many informantsexpressed concerns about disaffected pupilswhom they perceived to be making it moredifficult for them to teach, without necessarilyperceiving it to be part of their role to supportsuch pupils. Given that guidance was notmentioned in the teachers’ agreement, we think thatmorale might be improved if employersclarified what is expected of teachers who workwithin these evolving guidance/pupil support

systems. Should all teachers have a pupil supportrole? And if so, who is to provide them with thenecessary training?

Currently students in initial training are intro-duced to pupil support as part of their teachereducation course, and some opportunities forcontinuing professional development are availablefor some existing teachers. However, we doubtwhether ‘pupil support’ can be viewed as an integralpart of teacher education as reported by ourrespondents. Evidence of gaps emerged from thisstudy, the most glaring being the absence of aScottish-wide statement of expectations of guidanceand how teachers might operationalise pupil entitle-ment to support in the post-teachers’ agreementworld. Until this is addressed, the ‘fault lines’ willcontinue to divide practitioners, especially primaryand secondary school teachers, and children indifferent schools and sectors will receive differentlevels of support from teachers who may or may nothave received adequate training in pupil supportand who may or may not consider it to an integralpart of their job. This is a cause of concern if aneffective way of supporting pupils is ever to bedeveloped.

References

Ashton, T. (1986). Information Paper 18: Guidance in secondary

schools. Scottish Educational Review, 18(2), 121–125.

Best, R. (2002). Pastoral care and personal-social Education: A

review of research undertaken for the British Educational

Research Association. BERA Review. Southwell, Nottingham:

BERA.

Boyd, B., & Lawson, J. (2003). Guidance matters: A pupil

perspective on guidance within Inverclyde Council. Glasgow:

University of Strathclyde.

Cairney, J. (2003). ‘Amateur hour’ for the guidance service. Times

Educational Supplement Scotland, 6 June, p. 4.

Department of Education & Employment. (1999). Tackling

truancy together: A strategy document. London: Department

of Education & Employment.

GTC. (1998). Making the difference: A GTC report on the

professional needs of Guidance teachers. Edinburgh: General

Teaching Council for Scotland.

HMIS. (1996). Effective learning and teaching in Scottish

secondary schools: Guidance. Edinburgh: Her Majesty’s

Inspectors of Schools.

Howieson, C., & Semple, S. (1996a). Guidance in secondary

schools. Interchange 41. Edinburgh: Scottish Office Education

and Industry Department.

Howieson, C., & Semple, S. (1996b). Guidance in secondary

schools. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for

Educational Sociology.

Howieson, C., & Semple, S. (1996c). Guidance in secondary

schools: Careers and the world of work. CES Briefing 5.

ARTICLE IN PRESSV. Wilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 1153–11641164

Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Educational

Sociology.

Howieson, C., & Semple, S. (1996d). Guidance in secondary

schools: The pupil perspective. CES Briefing 4. Edinburgh:

University of Edinburgh, Centre for Educational

Sociology.

Howieson, C., & Semple, S. (2000). The evaluation of guidance:

Listening to pupils’ views. British Journal of Guidance and

Counselling, 28(3), 373–388.

McLaren, D. J. (1999). Guidance and personal and social

education in the secondary school. In T. D. G. Bryce, & W.

M. Humes (Eds.), Scottish Education (pp. 415–424). Edin-

burgh: Edinburgh University Press.

McLaren, D. J. (2003). Guidance, personal and social education

and pastoral care in the secondary school. In T. D. G. Bryce,

& W. M. Humes (Eds.), Scottish Education (pp. 429–437).

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

National Audit Office. (2005). Improving school attendance in

England. London: The Stationery Office.

Scottish Central Committee on Guidance. (1986). More than

feelings of concern. Dundee: Scottish Consultative Committee

on the Curriculum.

Scottish Executive. (2001a). Better behaviour—Better learning.

Report of the Discipline Task Group. Edinburgh: Scottish

Executive Education Department.

Scottish Executive. (2001b). A teaching profession for the 21st

Century. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department.

Scottish Executive. (2003). A review of guidance in Scottish schools.

Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department.

Scottish Executive. (2005). Happy, safe and achieving their

potential—the report of the National Review of Guidance

2004. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

SED. (1968). Guidance in Scottish secondary schools. Edinburgh:

HMSO.

SED. (1971). The structure of promoted posts in secondary schools

in Scotland. Edinburgh: HMSO.

Social Exclusion Unit. (1998). Truancy and school exclusion

report. London: The Stationery Office.

Watts, A. G., & Kidd, J. M. (2000). Guidance in the United

Kingdom: Past, present and future. British Journal of

Guidance and Counselling, 28(4), 485–502.

Wilson, V., Hall, S., Davidson, J., & Clancy, K. (2005). Supporting

pupils: A study of guidance in Scottish schools. Final report.

Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department.